Marine bayonet training

by United States. Marine Corps

(3) The bayonet as we know it today has its origins at the beginning of the 19th century. Late in the 18th century a major bayonet modification appeared, the sword bayonet. This has been the prototype for most bayonets since that date. The now familiar knife blade bayonet came into general use about the same time as the introduction of the magazine rifle, just prior to the Civil War. There were a variety of shapes and sizes ranging from the sword-like, 24-inch blade down to the dagger-type, 10-inch blade. Typically, there were a variety of short-lived variations and multiuse bayonets. There were saw-toothed blades for use by engineer troops, saber-edged blades for use by the cavalry, spade-shaped blades to help the infantryman dig in, and bolo-knife blades for cutting through the jungles. In addition, there was a ramrod/cleaning rod blade consisting of a long cleaning rod, sharpened to a point at one end and folding under the barrel like the old fashioned cleaning rod. None of these modifications were adopted for long. At this point the rifleman had an instrument with which he could protect himself as he reloaded his weapon. It served to protect him and better his morale when rain had soaked his powder or wind had blown the powder from his pan. He could now defend himself against the sabre slashes of the cavalry or a charge by the infantry.

b. Development of Bayonet Fighting Techniques.—The bayonet was developed to protect the musketeer while he reloaded his weapon, a defensive mission. The tactics employed were an individual or unit matter; there was no published doctrine for bayonet fighting. However, as weapons improved and rapid fire, longer range weapons were developed, the troops were more widely dispersed on the battlefield. The percentage of time spent in close combat with the enemy was reduced. As a result, the use of the bayonet, a close combat weapon, was also reduced. There is little said about the use of the bayonet in the American Civil War and Spanish-American War.

(1) The development of the machinegun and refinements in artillery reversed the trend toward battlefield mobility and World War I was a static conflict in which trench warfare was employed. There were great concentrations of troops, sometimes in close proximity to one another. The bayonet was extremely important in trench fighting, and the experience gained in World War I led to the publication of the first manuals on bayonet fighting doctrine. The bayonet was depicted as an offensive weapon, used in assaulting enemy troops in trenches. Many of the principles appearing in these manuals are still valid today. Early doctrine pictured the bayonet as essential for successful culmination of the attack. Artillery fire was capable of demolishing enemy trenches, but this was undesirable since the trenches would have to be redug to defend against the inevitable counterattack. Therefore the only way to drive the enemy from his trenches without destroying the trench and burying him was through the bayonet assault. The doctrine set forth in these manuals regarding attitude, standardization of movements, and practice for bayonet fighting was as follows:

(a) The bayonet fighter was given a firm knowledge of the underlying principles of bayonet combat. The bayonet was regarded as an individual weapon and each bayonet fighter was taught in such a manner as to take advantage of his own physical characteristics. No attempt was made to set down prescribed standards as to the position of feet or hands on the weapon. Each bayonet fighter was left free to choose positions and movements most natural to him.

(b) Instructors corrected individual errors, but took advantage of any particular skill possessed by any individual. Instructors tried to develop to the fullest degree the proficiency of the individual, consistent with his physique and degree of development, but guarded against attempting to make a precise parade or calisthenic drill of bayonet training.

(c) Assumption of a vicious, aggressive attitude was the “spirit of the bayonet.” An actual bayonet fight was depicted as lasting only a few seconds during which time the bayonet fighter was to kill his opponent or be killed himself. The necessity for aggressive action was as obvious then as it is today. The enemy was to be forced on the defensive; the battle was won if this was achieved. The attack consisted of a succession of thrusts, cuts, feints, and butt strokes delivered in succession and without pause, so as not to allow the opponent to recover.

(d) The employment of teamwork in the bayonet assault was emphasized. The assaulting troops remained on line. An individual who got too far ahead and was killed before assistance could arrive was not contributing to a successful assault. Similarly, an individual who remained behind was useless in the assault.

(2) The individual attack movements described in early manuals closely resemble those taught and employed today. Today’s system is somewhat simpler and facilitates better balance of the bayonet fighter and control of the weapon. Training consisted of individual familiarization with the movements, the use of dummies, thrusting rings, and practice in assaulting enemy trenches with troops on line. The latter category received more emphasis. Dummies were placed in trenches and attacked by bayonet fighters. The system of bayonet fighting taught to American fighting men during World War II closely resembled that employed during World War I. The basics of this system were established in 1905 and changed very little through the conduct of World Wars I and II. Bayonets were employed during World War I principally in the assault of enemy trenches, while, in World War II, their employment was extended to include seizure of key enemy held terrain objectives.

(3) The bayonet fighting system currently taught and employed by the Marine Corps was developed by Doctor Armond H. Seidler, professor in the Department of Physical Education at the University of Illinois. Dr. Seidler was a bayonet instructor in the U.S. Army during World War II when the Biddle system was taught. He felt the movements of the old system were awkward and difficult to execute, and often caused the bayonet fighter to lose his balance. If the bayonet fighter failed to disable his opponent with the first blow he was then frequently left at the enemy’s mercy. Dr. Seidler was convinced that the movements of the Biddle system were unnatural and this would result in their being discarded in an actual bayonet fight, and the bayonet fighter resorting to a disorganized attack on his enemy. Under the Seidler system the guard position remains the basic position. All movements begin from the guard position and each movement consists of an attack and a recovery. The recovery is a return to the guard position. In the execution of a movement, the two phases follow without deliberate pause. This makes the entire movement a uniformly smooth action. The attack may be continued without returning to the guard position, either by repeating the same movement or utilizing another followup movement. Followup movements are designed so that a blocked initial movement sets the opponent up for the delivery of another killing blow without the bayonet fighter having to return to the guard position and without loss of balance.

c. The Importance of the Bayonet.—The importance of the bayonet cannot be measured by the frequency of its use or the number of casualties for which it accounts. It is indispensable because of the confidence it breeds in the individual fighting man, and the willingness instilled in him to close with the enemy and destroy him. Closing with and destroying the enemy is the mission of the infantry, and the major importance of the bayonet is that it allows the individual Marine to accomplish this mission under a wide variety of conditions. The bayonet is always loaded and always operative.